A former Mormon–one who came to a saving knowledge of the true, biblical Christ–penned the following piece found at Mormon Coffee:
This is the Christ of Mormonism:
1. He lives as a humanoid god on a star near Kolob along with his father god, bound by the physical world; he does not transcend the material.
2. He is the brother of satan.
3. He had to earn his own salvation while he was on earth.
4. He offers his “grace” only to those who work hard enough.
5. He is not from everlasting to everlasting, but was created a finite time ago by his father god, who in turn was also created by his own father god, who in turn was created by his own father god, so on and so forth
6. He is not the greatest being possible.
7. He is finite.
8. His blood is not powerful enough to wipe away any sin.
9. He aided his father in creating earth by organizing already existing matter; he is not capable of creating things out of nothing.
10. He must submit to a moral law that existed before he did.
11. You can one day become just like him.This is the Christ of the Bible:
1. He is a spirit being that transcends space and time.
2. He is the brother of no creature; He is God, from everlasting to everlasting. No one can claim kinship with Him except those He purchased for Himself on the cross. And He is not the same type of creature they are. He is not a creature, He is God.
3. Jesus is the Author of Salvation; to say that He needed to earn His salvation is absurdity.
4. He offers His sovereign grace to whomever He sovereignly chooses; we are all tainted by sin and vile in His holy eyes. Therefore, no one is more worthy than any other human being. Thus, His grace that He offers is given unconditionally. His grace is true grace, a beautiful gift.
5. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He was never created, and Has been in relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever.
6. He is the greatest being possible, the Most High God. There is no one like Him and there is no one who will ever be anything like Him.
7. He is infinite, both in essence and in His divine perfections.
8. His blood is powerful enough to wipe away any sin, regardless of heinousness and duration. The only sin that cannot be forgive is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; and this is not because the blood of Christ is not powerful enough to wash it away, but because God has so sovereignly decreed that all persons who blaspheme the Holy Ghost should not receive forgiveness.
9. He created everything that exists out of nothing by the mere word of His mouth.
10. There is no external law that He submits to; He is the Author and the Source of the Law.
11. No one can ever come near to obtaining the glory and excellency of Christ.
For another article comparing the true Jesus of Scripture to that of the many counterfeit Christs of the false cults and religions, see Which Jesus Do You Worship?
Christ Alone Wyoming 
Your listing of our true Lord Jesus Christ, was beautiful and full of power and grace!! After having to read the appalling details in the first list…my soul cringed at the blasphemy of such statements…it was with blessed relief and refreshing to read those glorious words of truth…Thank You!!
A question… Concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit… what exactly does it mean? Is it the apostasy of false teachers and prophets who falsely use the name of the Holy Spirit for their horrible works? Is it something else? I have pondered this in my spirit for a very long time… I will say that what you shared about God’s sovereignty concerning this issue brought me more understanding and I’m grateful. Can you help me understand more fully?
LikeLike
Good stuff Pilgrim. I couldn’t help to think while reading the Mormon version of who Jesus is that it sounds like the Post-Modern divinity reducing, sin reducing movement that we are seeing so much today. What difference is there between the modern views of a Rob Bell or Brian McLaren than that list from the Mormons…?…maybe just the weird part about the planet Kalob and satan as brother? Hmm…
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this, Pilgrim. What a contrast between the anemic “christ” of Mormonism, and the Almighty God Jesus Christ of the Bible.
LikeLike
Love the graphic – MOST appropriate for the false Jesus creations of LDS, Roman Catholic, and other cults. I also love the banner graphic at Mormon Coffee – http://blog.mrm.org/ GENIUS!
LikeLike
“4. He offers his “grace” only to those who work hard enough.”
Shane places palm to forehead and gets bewildered look on face- All this time I thought grace was a gift.
LikeLike
Wonderful comparison. It is just a pity that the first list is not accurate, but is full of error (I would say less than 25% is actually LDS teachings). Let me explain.
Here is the list, and in parentheses the real doctrine.
1. He lives as a humanoid god on a star near Kolob along with his father god, bound by the physical world; he does not transcend the material.
(This is the most correct, but let us see the minor error: He lives on a planet, for Kolob is the star. He is not humanoid, but human. While he is bound by the physical, he transcends the mortal. This distinction is difficult for many to grasp, and the given statement conceals it very well.)
2. He is the brother of satan.
(This is true.)
3. He had to earn his own salvation while he was on earth.
(This is a misrepresentation of the actual doctrine. He had salvation long before he ever lived on this Earth. He was the God of the Old Testament, and one cannot be a God unless they have received salvation. What he had to do on this Earth was gain his physical body, and only after his mortal death could be truly glorified in the same manner as the Father. He was still God, and has been from the beginning of this Earth, but he was a spirit, and now he is an immortal being.)
4. He offers his “grace” only to those who work hard enough.
(He offers his grace to everyone. It just is not as effective for those who do not work hard. This does not reduce the power of his grace. It is much like giving a man a tool to work with. The tool is capable of performing the work, but it is up to the man how much work he actual gets done.
5. He is not from everlasting to everlasting, but was created a finite time ago by his father god, who in turn was also created by his own father god, who in turn was created by his own father god, so on and so forth
(Christ was never created. Spirit cannot be created. All things have existed for all eternity. All that was created is the physical body that the spirits inhabit. Christ is from everlasting to everlasting, for he has always existed and always will exist.)
6. He is not the greatest being possible.
(This is completely false. He is the greatest being possible, and I don’t think anyone in the LDS church would dispute that.)
7. He is finite.
(He is infinite in character and virtue, though he is not infinite in substance.)
8. His blood is not powerful enough to wipe away any sin.
(His blood is powerful enough to wipe away any sin; it is just that God has decreed that certain sins will not gain the benefit of that power. It is really the same reasoning that is later used to explain why blaspheming the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven, we just apply it, in part, to murder as well. All other sins can be washed clean by his blood.)
9. He aided his father in creating earth by organizing already existing matter; he is not capable of creating things out of nothing.
(How true, but then the Bible does not speak of creation from nothing, but of the organization of disorganized material – see original Hebrew text of Genesis.)
10. He must submit to a moral law that existed before he did.
(This is also true, and for it I am glad. After all, if God created the moral law than he is, by default, the creator of evil. As such, to punish anyone is unjust.)
11. You can one day become just like him.
(No one ever said we will be just like Christ. We will be gods, yes, but he will always be the Savior and our ruler. We cannot take his glory or his authority. Thus, while we will be like him in character, virtue, and knowledge, we will never be just like him.)
so, maybe I didn’t give enough credit. The list may be closer to half right, but that is still not a very good record. After all, it takes at least a 60% in even our society of low standards to pass.
As to the other list given, I have to say that I have read the Bible in its entirety (with the exception of the Songs of Solomon) three times and I have yet to find proof of any of the points listed.
It is a good list of the general Christian beliefs, but to say it is Biblical is to give yourself a little too much credit.
LikeLike
shematwater, out of my own curiosity, since i don’t know anything about you…what Bible did you read 3 times? was it a protestant translation that is held in high regard such as a King James, a New American Standard? or another translation? this is of course a key point from what we get out of the words of the Bible. Just a couple of examples for you (these are from ESV version):
#11:”No one can ever come near to obtaining the glory and excellency of Christ.”
#7. “He is infinite, both in essence and in His divine perfections.”
#9. “He created everything that exists out of nothing by the mere word of His mouth.”
John 1:1-18
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
Colossians 1:12-20: (we know he is speaking of Christ by context of this chapter)
2 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
– singularly glorious, excellent, amazing.
Hebrews 1:1-4
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
-again, glorious, unique, amazing.
It obviously would take a ton of scripture to support what Pilgrim put in there, but it is there.
LikeLike
10. He must submit to a moral law that existed before he did.
(This is also true, and for it I am glad. After all, if God created the moral law than he is, by default, the creator of evil. As such, to punish anyone is unjust.)
shematwater,
Three questions.
According to LDS theology a.) from whence does the moral law originate? b.) Is the moral law an uncreated universal that exists independently? c.) Is the moral law material, spiritual or other?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
@ MaryL,
Thank you for your comment. I just want to clarify that I did not write this piece. But I do, however, recommend a similar post I wrote in 2008 that examines the Christ of false religions in comparison to the true Christ as revealed in Scripture entitled Which Jesus Do You Worship? It was even featured on Todd Friel’s radio show Way of the Master before it changed to Wretched Radio.
@ Shem,
Were you finished defending LDS doctrine on this post and this post?
LikeLike
Pilgrim… Thank you for the link! I realized a bit after I wrote the first comment that you had not written it…oops! But I did pray that perhaps my question could still be answered… I appreciate your response very much!
LikeLike
@MaryL,
what was your question again? Something about blaspheme the Holy Spirt? I don’t see it in the comments. I will try to give you a detailed answer.
LikeLike
MaryL:
Allow me to direct you to a three-part message from Phil Johnson on the subject you are inquiring about:
http://defendingcontending.com/2010/02/11/sermon-of-the-week-the-unpardonable-sin-the-blasphemy-against-the-spirit-and-a-plea-to-the-halfhearted-by-phil-johnson/
I trust this will answer all your questions and more.
LikeLike
Thank you so much!! I’m going to go read it now!
Oh Rats!! It’s in audio format and my internet connection is way too slow for it… can I get it in written format anywhere?? Or perhaps someone can answer for me… What is ‘The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that won’t be forgiven’ ? What does it mean… I have an idea but I’m not sure…
LikeLike
MaryL,
try this one…i have not read it yet, but Big Mac is a safe source usually.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/41-16_The-Unforgivable-Sin
My brief explanation though:
Thank you so much for your response and the link!…I will go read it now… I am however, a little confused at the following; how are they reconciled? How am I misunderstanding what you have said in the first statement compared to the scripture reference? I hope its ok to continue this discussion within this post because I don’t want to go off topic….
*The unbeliever though can do it and does it all the time…but praise God for the subjunctive mood allowing that the possibly of forgiveness is there upon regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
*but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”
LikeLike
Actually, can you continue with this discussion on a more apropos post? I’d prefer to keep this comment thread on topic, so if you if you don’t mind, please move this discussion to here?
Thanks.
LikeLike
abidingthroughgrace
I always use the King James Version.
CORAM
a.) It has no origin, but is itself without beginning of days or end of years, an eternal truth that has always and will always exist, and by which all beings are made perfect.
b.) Yes (see A)
c.) It is other. To be material or spiritual is to have form and parts. The moral law that governs all existence has neither, but simply is. It is the simple truth of existence, that there must be an opposition in all things. For God to be good there must be an evil. For there to be life there must be death. For there to be salvation there must be damnation.
PILGRIM
I might continue, but quite honestly the thread were not interesting enough for me to continue for a great length of time. However, since you mention them I will make one more comment on each.
LikeLike
shematwater,
Thank you for your reply. It is quite simply fascinating.
Can you direct me to LDS resources and authorities that teach this so that I can confirm that your response represents the official teachings of the LDS church as opposed to your personal opinion, understanding, or private interpretation of LDS doctrine?
Based on your reply above is it fair to conclude that the God of Mormonism (and by extension of logic any and all beings which have ever existed and ever will exist whether created or uncreated) are accountable to the moral law in the sense that the moral law has eternally existed, uncreated, apart from and above all other things in existence?
In other words according to LDS theology is it accurate to state that any and all beings, whether created or uncreated, who have ever existed or ever will exist, are under the uncreated, and eternally existent moral law as their means of perfection, including the Heavenly Father during his probation and continuing even now, in addition to all other exalted gods?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Shematwater,
Since you as a Mormon must subscribe to the belief that the Bible is incorrectly translated, please explain why you choose to use the KJV over the Joseph Smith Translation. The JST should not have the translational problems, since it was given to Smith by revelation. So why do you not use it?
LikeLike
GLENN
Joseph Smith did not translate every passage of the Bible. He translated certain sections which he was inspired to translate. As such his translation is not a complete translation, and thus to rely solely on it would be foolish.
I do own a copy of the complete Joseph Smith translation in a side-by-side comparrison with the King James, and I do use it as a reference and a way to clarify certain confusing passages (such as the story of Lot and the three angel) that it addresses.
As to the King James Version itself, I would agree that there are error in it, but I have not seen many that are truly significant, and I believe a modest understanding of God and his plan for us can be gained from reading it.
I think many people have a misconception about what we mean when we say the Bible is incorrectly translated. For the most part what we have is truly accurate. The incorrect translation came primarily in the removal of parts and doctrine, not in the changing of them.
While there is error in what we have, it is still the work of God, and preserved to enough to inspire Joseph Smith which led to the restoration. We would be fools to reject the very book that brought about the very church we believe in.
CORAM
I see where you are trying to go with this. The answer is no, in the sense that this law could be considered any form of deity of God to them. It is, however, yes in the sense that it is what allows for perfection.
It is very similar to our mortal life. We are subject to certain laws of nutrition. If these laws are complied with we will bring ourselves to peak physical condition. If they are ignored or fought we degenerate into frail, sickly creatures. However, in no sense are these laws like a god to us. We are not accountable to these laws for our actions. But it is by these laws that we attain physical strength.
So too are their moral laws of existance, and if these laws are complied with perfection will be the result. If they are ignored or defied however, degeneration will result. But we are not accountable to these laws for our actions.
Let me explain: Our Heavenly Father has attained that perfection that comes with compliance to these laws. He wants us to do the same, for he seeks for us all to be perfected. If we do not and thus degenerate who do we effect? Are the laws going to complain? Are they going to try and correct us? Is it these laws that strive to teach us and lovingingly guide us into perfection? No. But these things are all done by our Father. As such, because it is our Father that is affected by our choices and it is He who will loose what he loves, it is to him we are accountable, not to the laws.
In other words, because we can take nothing from nor giving anything to the moral laws of existance we cannot be accountable to them. We are accountable only to those who we can take from and give to. This is part of the moral laws.
Regarding references, give me a little while, but I think all of this is found in the King Follett discourse given by Joseph Smith and found within the book “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” which was compiled by Joseph F. Smith.
LikeLike
Shematwater,
By what do you determine that Smith didn’t do a complete “translation.” There is no evidence for that claim of which I am familiar.
Doctrine & Covenants 73:3-4 (Jan.10, 1832) states that “it is
expedient to translate again…it is expedient to continue the work
of translation until it be finished.”
History of the Church, Vol.1, p.324, under the date Feb. 2, 1833,
the following is attributed to Joseph Smith: “I completed the trans-
lation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February,
1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.”
In Church Chronology, by Andrew Jenson, under the date 2/2/1833
is: “Joseph Smith, jun., completed the translation of the New Test-
ament.” Under the date 7/2/1833 is: “Joseph the Prophet finished
the translation of the Bible.”
In a letter dated July 2, 1833, and published in Times & Seasons
6:802, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and F.G. Williams,
the following statement is made: “We this day finished the translating
of the scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly
Father.” History of the Church Vol. 1, p.368.
If the “New Translation” was not finished, God would not have
ordered it printed. Yet D&C 94:10 (5/6/33) said Joseph was to
build a house for the printing of it, D&C 104:58 (4/23/34) orders the
printing of it, as does D&C 124:89 (1/19/41), which says,
“publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants
of the earth.”
Everything I read said Joseph Smith completed the translation; it doesn’t say he translated only parts of the Bible.
As for your claim as to errors of deletions, what evidence do you have for this other than the word of a necromancer; a man who “translated” the BOM by use of a seer stone in a hat held over his face?
LikeLike
shematwater,
I wasn’t suggesting that I thought you meant that the moral law was a personal being rather than an impersonal universal law, but it remains that according to LDS theology (at least your understanding of it) the moral law pre-existed Heavenly Father in the sense that he was subject to it during his earthly probation, and it has been in effect uncreated forever in time and eternity without beginning or ending.
Is this correct?
If so, then by being subjected to it (the moral law), at least during his earthly probation it stood (and still stands?) over and above him as a universal rule, which he did not create, but rather he was (and is?) subject to.
Is this correct?
I look forward to your citations confirming this is official, authoritative LDS doctrine as opposed to your private opinion or interpretation. I’ve not been able to find anything on this topic.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
GLENN
The evidence that Joseph Smith did not do a complete translation is in the fact that he didn’t do it. There are many books of the Bible that he not only made no changes in but made no comment on, indicating that he had not worked in those books.
As to all the evidence you present, it really only speaks to the New Testament being completed. As I was speaking of the Bible as a whole what I said is still accurate because we have no record of the Old Testament being completed, and thus the Bible was not fully translated.
Also, the work of transation was complete, but this does not mean that every passage in the Bible had been translated, only that those which God deemed necessary were translated and the thus the need to translate was finished.
As I said, I have the full translation in a comparrison with the KJV, and simply by reading this it becomes obvious that much was not translated by Joseph Smith, but that the work required had been.
CORAM
First question: Basically, but then we are all eternal beings, having existed without beginning or end, just as God is. It is not that this law existed before God, but that it is co-eternal with God.
Second Question: I would actually say no to this. I don’t think I was really clear before, but what I was saying is that God is not subject to this law, for the simple fact that we can’t be subject to a law.
As it says in our 12th article of faith “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates by honoring, obeying, and sustaining the Law.”
Notice that we do not believe we are subject to the law, but to the people who abminister the law. The say is true in the eternities. We are not subject to the law, but to the one who administers the law, or God. Thus God is not subject to the law, but to the one who administers the law for him, or to his Father.
We owe allegience to the administrators of the law, and we show this allegience in obeying the laws that they administer. It is for this reason that one who breaks the law is said to owe a debt to society and not to the law.
Though God followed and obeyed this great eternal law, he was never subject to it; it was never over him. He was subject to his Father, who was over him.
King Follett Discourse: http://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/talks/JS%20KingFollettDiscourse.pdf
Heading- Power of the Father and the Son; second paragraph
“Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to
learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
Heading- The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings (whole section)
Heading- The Immortal Spirit; second paragraph
“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles.”
As Joseph Smith says we have to learn to become gods in the same manner as all other gods did before us, and on the same principles as our Father. Thus we see that it is the same governing principles that bring us to perfection and exaltation that has brought our Father, and evry other god to perfection and exaltation.
Now, I will point out that this particular discourse was never submitted to the membership of the church to be accepted as binding doctrine, but it is what Joseph Smith taught and so I feel perfectly comfortable is presenting it as the truth and doctrine of the LDS church.
LikeLike
Shematwater,
Read again the information I posted about the translation:
“I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.”
Okay – that was in February. Then on July 2, 1833, they say, “We this day finished the translating of the scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father.”
Since he finished the N.T. five months earlier, this has to mean the COMPLETE Bible, including the O.T.
You said the evidence that Smith didn’t do the whole Bible was the “fact that he didn’t do it.” Where is that fact stated by Smith? Everything says he finished it. You say he left things the same and made no comments, but if he was translating and what was there was correct, why would he need to make changes or comments? You make an argument that this indicates he didn’t look at those books but the better argument from the documentation is that he “finished” the translation – meaning there was nothing left undone.
So what you are saying is that God had Smith translate the Bible, but that He only had him translate SOME of the Bible?!?! So if the Bible was incomplete, and there were errors, God decided to NOT have all this fixed? That the only things that God directed Smith to do was to add stuff that supported the new gospel (in contradiction to Gal. 1:8-9) of Smith, and stuff that would support the other bizarre teachings of Smith? And you actually believe this to be true just because a known necromancer said so?
What evidence do you have, other than the say-so of a false prophet (I can prove he made dozens of false prophecies), that the Bible has errors and that it left out things?
One comment in response to your response to Coram in regards to the King Follet discourse. Since when was anything of Smith’s required to be submitted to the membership to be accepted as binding doctrine? Since he was the original LDS prophet of God, everything he taught should be binding without any approval of membership. I don’t recall any of the D&C being submitted for approval, or the POGP, or the JST Bible, or even the BOM!!!!! Perhaps his teaching SHOULD have been submitted for approval, eh?
LikeLike
shematwater,
Thanks for your reply. Please allow me to re-state your case as I understand it, based upon my reading of your position on the moral law as you’ve articulated it most recently:
i.) The moral law is immaterial, uncreated and eternal. It has always existed apart from, and with, yet not above or below any other eternal beings (gods), being co-equal to them with respect to eternal existence, yet it is distinct from them in that it is an impersonal and universal law, and not a personal being. Its primary purpose is to serve to provide the measure and/or standard of perfection whereby all personal eternal god-beings are instructed by their individual Father gods in order that they themselves might be perfected thereby, attaining to exalted godhood (becoming a Father god) who are enabled by obedience to the moral law as given by their individual Father god(s) to “to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
ii.) You believe your conception of the moral law is faithful to official, authoritative LDS theology based on your interpretation of the LDS 12th article of faith, in addition to your understanding of the meaning of Joseph Smith, Jr.’s King Follett Discourse, and although this discourse is not binding doctrine you are “comfortable presenting it as the truth and doctrine of the LDS church”.
Am I understanding you correctly?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Dear Shem,
In your May 22nd comment, you said: “Joseph Smith did not translate every passage of the Bible. He translated certain sections which he was inspired to translate. As such his translation is not a complete translation, and thus to rely solely on it would be foolish.”
You then said in the next paragraph: “I do own a copy of the complete Joseph Smith translation in a side-by-side comparrison with the King James . . .”
How can you own a “complete Joseph Smith translation” that “is not a complete translation“?
Can you please clarify?
LikeLike
GLENN
I have done a little more research on the subject. Yes Joseph Smith did finish the translation, but he never finished the publication. While the actual translation was complete it had not been prepared but remained in draft form with various notes, and even having two different versions for several verses.
I was in error, and I will admit this. However, I was not in error in stating that the work was incomplete, only in that the translation was incomplete. Even today it is difficult to understand exactly what Joseph Smith intended in certain passages and to reconcile the differences between the different manuscripts. This was the part of the work that Joseph Smith did not finish, and thus the JST is not complete and not able to be used as the standard of the church.
CORAM
Actually, you put a little into what I said that I did not.
I made no mention of “Individual Father-Gods.” This is a term and concept that you have placed into my explanation that I never intended to be there. However, this gets into things that I would prefer not to discuss online.
Now, beyond this most of what you say is correct, and it is in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the church (the binding doctrine).
PILGRIM
When I said he never completed the translation I referred to my mistaken belief that he had not actually translated every passage within the Bible.
When I stated that I had a copy of the complete Joseph Smith Translation I was referring to the fact that I have two books (one the Old and the other the New Testament) that contain all the changes that Joseph Smith did make to the text of the Bible.
In other words, I said that Joseph Smith never made a complete translation, but I do have a complete set of the translation he did make.
LikeLike
Shematwater,
Again, refer to my previous posts. God told him to build the printing house and to print it. God would not have told him to do that if the manuscript was not complete and ready. Unless you claim God has no clue?
The real story is that he didn’t get a chance to print it as God instructed because he got busy with other matters (adultery, etc) until he was killed. Emma had the manuscript and wouldn’t let the LDS have it, so they make the claim that it was incomplete, etc. The truth is, it had to be ready for printing or God would not have ordered it printed, nor would the records say it was complete.
LikeLike
Thanks again, shematwater. I think I understand your position more clearly now, although you still haven’t provided any actual evidence indicating that your position is representative of authoritative, binding LDS doctrine. With your indulgence I would like to ask you to clarify what you meant in the following comments from your prior response, which led me to think you were referring to “individual Father-Gods”. Here is the quote that led me to apparently misunderstand that portion of your reply in its original context:
Thus God is not subject to the law, but to the one who administers the law for him, or to his Father. We owe allegience to the administrators of the law, and we show this allegience in obeying the laws that they administer. It is for this reason that one who breaks the law is said to owe a debt to society and not to the law. Though God followed and obeyed this great eternal law, he was never subject to it; it was never over him. He was subject to his Father, who was over him.
I read this to be an explanation of how a yet future God (Father-God), through obedience to the eternal moral law as administered by his God (his individual Father-God) during his probation would be enabled (as Joseph Smith Jr. mentioned in his King Follett Discourse to which you made reference in the same response) to ““dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
Could you clarify what you meant when you wrote this?
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
GLENN
What you say is a presumption as to the workings of God. To say that God would not have done this is absurd. Who are you to dictate to God what he can and cannot do.
God ordered the printing house to be prepared not only for the Bible but for the revelations that Joseph Smith had recorded, as well as other publications the church would need to produce. These things were ready and they were published.
However, God can command anything he likes, regardless of whether or not men are prepared to complete them or not. His commands are not always intended to be fulfilled, but are useful for our instruction and learning.
CORAM
I really do not like discussing these things on-line. However, I will do my best to explain them without getting to far into things I shouldn’t.
In the King Follett discourse Joseph Smith talks about the very first passage in the Bible (I cannot recall what section of the discourse it is in). He states that the original meaning was “the Head of the Gods called forth the gods in a grand counsel.”
The Head of the Gods, or as the Bible refers to him “the Most High God.” He is the ruler of Heaven and Earth. He is the one above all other gods. He is the Father, the spiritual father of all men and the literal Father of Christ.
We are all the children of Deity, for only a god can have spirit children and have their dominion and glory increase (D&C 132: 19). However, the one we call Father is not our literal father, but the Head of the Gods. As it says we are “begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76: 24). While we are born to divine parents we are still counted as the children of the Head, for he is the grand authority in Heaven, under whom we exist. This is why the term Father is always capitalized when referring to the grand Head, for it is a title of authority, not a term of literal relation.
So, we are instructed, not necessarily by our literal parents, but by the Head of the Gods who oversees all things. We are also instructed by His Son, the only begotten of the Father in the flesh.
Now, when I speak of the Head of the Gods I speak of only a single generation. Our Heavenly Father is the Head of the Gods of His generation. Christ, who is God and the second member of the Godhead will inherit the ruling authority and be the Head of the Gods of our generation. His son will then inherit and be the head of the next generation, just as it has been throughout eternity. This is why Christ is referred to as the Head of the church, for he will be the Head, or the Leader of all the gods of our generation.
Now, I do not say that this is official, binding doctrine, and I likely said more than I should have. What I do say is that this is in harmony with official binding doctrine.
I do not believe we will have individual planets, and this is not official doctrine. In truth there is no official doctrine as to what things will be like in the eternal worlds, but from all I have read and studied what I have just outlined is more in harmony with what the scriptures states (which is official) and with what leaders have taught from the beginning.
To give an example: If I was to have my own individual planet I would not be able to bring my children to salvation. Christ has taught that “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” Thus, since I did not perform the atonement my son cannot perform the atonement, for my son can do nothing but what he seeth me, his father, do.
I do not believe in individual father-gods. I believe in a grand counsel of all those in a generation who have attained godhood, working together under the direction of their Head to bring all their children to salvation.
(for further reading see Abraham chapter 4-5.)
LikeLike
JD 13:271 − p.272, Brigham Young, July 24, 1870
LikeLike
It is not a presumption to say what God would do; we have the Bible to tell us the character of the real God. The real God does not speak foolishness. I’ll give you that the printing house was to be used for all of God’s words, but the fact remains that the evidence clearly states that the JST was completed – 100% completed. No place does the evidence suggest it was only in “draft” form. God said to print the JST, and God is not going to speak foolish commands about publishing something that wasn’t completed. Show me once in the Bible where God gives a command which He really doesn’t want fulfilled. You are really reaching for an excuse here.
You have yet to give evidence that anything was deleted from the Bible, nor have you given evidence of doctrinal errors in the Bible.
In reference to the King Follett Discourse, how can it NOT be binding doctrine if it was a teaching of the prophet Joseph Smith? His multiple gods theology is found in the JST version of Genesis, which is supposedly by direct revelation, and yet you say it is not official, binding doctrine?!
LikeLike
SHANE
And your point is?
GLENN
It is a presumption, and yes it is dictating to God what he can and cannot do. You want an example of commands given that were not meant to be fulfilled. Let us look at the Story of Abraham and Isaac. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which was a direct contradiction to the command that thou shalt not kill, as well as the promise that Isaac would bare the covenant line. But Abraham, humble enough not to presume to dictate God’s actions, obey the command and took his beloved son to be sacrificed. At the last moment God stopped Abraham.
Now, unless you want to argue that God truly wanted Isaac killed this is the perfect example of what you are requiring, and thus we have a biblical president for what I have asserted.
As to the JST, the evidence is clear for anyone who actually wants to be objective about it. The simple fact is that the only copies that exist are drafts that have not yet been prepared for printing. That is enough evidence for me.
The work of translation was complete, as you say, but the work of publication never was, and due to his martyrdom it has yet to be completed. Accept the facts or don’t, but don’t try to intimidate me into accepting your false belief.
As to the King Follett discourse, you clearly have no understanding of how the church works if you can claim that it is binding doctrine in any sense of the word. God does not lay on people more than they can handle. For something to be binding it must be accepted as binding by the entire membership of the church. It is what is known as the Law of Common Consent. A revelation may be given to a prophet or the president, but it is not binding on the membership until it has been submitted to them for a sustaining vote.
Example: the word of Wisdom (D&C 89) was revealed in the mid-1830’s, but it was not a binding doctrine until the 1850’s when it was submitted for the vote to make it such.
The King Follett discourse was never submitted for such a vote, and so it is not binding on the church. There is no question regarding what it teaches in the baptismal interview or to get a Temple Recommend.
Do not try and lecture me on what the doctrine of the LDS church is, or what should be considered official and binding. You clearly have little understanding of the our faith and church.
LikeLike
I just find it funny that a “prophet” that supposedly speaks for the creator would say that people live on the moon. I just thought I would share it. Maybe others will find humor in it just as I did.
LikeLike
Shane,
I always thought it was funny – a definite proof that BY was NOT a prophet of God. After all, the guy, speaking for God, said there were people living on the moon AND the sun. But, the LDS has a way of discounting previous prophets, and apparently Shemmy is also discounting the teaching of their prime prophet Joseph Smith. If it sounds bizarre to normal people, then it must be discounted.
Which is why the LDS discounts the “Blood Atonement” doctrine, the “Adam-God” doctrine and a host of others. BY was only a prophet where he agrees with modern teachings.
__________________________________________________________
Shematwater,
It is never presumptuous to say what God tells us as to what He does. Mormonism has a fickle God who always changes his mind, but the God of the Bible isn’t that way. We can count on God’s character.
As for the issue with Isaac, God gave the command to test Abraham and He only intervened at the last moment to prove to Abraham that Abraham’s faith was real (God didn’t need the proof for Himself). It did not violate any command not to kill because there is no such command; that is one of those KJVisms that Joseph didn’t fix! The command is to not murder; while murder is killing, not all killing is murder.
Now, the command indeed had a purpose and was fulfilled as far as the purpose. To compare this with God’s command to print the JST is ludicrous. The command to print the JST was because the JST was completed, as demonstrated by the citations I provided. You have no evidence to back up your claim that Smith only completed certain parts.
Now, the copies that exist are indeed ready for printing; who are you to say they aren’t? They indeed were printed but not by the LDS; it was the RLDS, which is why the LDS has to make all sorts of claims against it. Emma wouldn’t let Brigham Young have it.
I am not intimidating you into anything. You are denying the historical record which says the translation was completed – the evidence I provided. You have no evidence to say otherwise. That is the fact – accept it or not, but it is still the fact as recorded by your prophet, and I’d take his word for it over yours!
Your claims about the King Follett Discourse not being binding doctrine is fallacious. By your standard, the BOM, the POGP and the D&C all have to be discounted. Smith never submitted any of these for a sustaining vote.
D&C 68:4 “And whatsoever they [LDS Elders] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” November 1831 – has this been over-ridden? Was this submitted for a sustaining vote?
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1282: “The inspired utterances of the President of the Church become binding upon members of the Church whether formally accepted as part of the written canon or not. The living prophet’s inspired words supersede and become more important to Latter-day Saints than the written canon or previous prophetic statements.”
JoD, 6:320 (Brigham Young): “…the words of an Apostle who magnifies his calling are the words of the Almighty to the people all the time. He never need be called in question whether he revealed the mind of the Lord or not.”
Gospel Truth, p.332 (George Q. Cannon): “It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God could not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired whether any man or body of men received them or not.”
Mormon Doctrine 149-150 (Bruce McConkie): “Revelations given of God through his prophets…are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity…. there is no provision in the Lord’s plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of the people or by other means.”
Okay, now tell me again that the prophetic teaching of Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse is subject to sustaining vote or is not binding doctrine.
Again, King Follett Discourse is based on JST’s version of Genesis, as well as the fraudulent Book of Abraham. These were direct revelations from God to Joseph Smith and yet you claim they are not binding? If they are not binding, then how can you claim any teaching of Smith’s is binding?!?
I have very much understanding of your church and your faith. I am an ex-Mormon and have studied the LDS faith for over 35 years. I have a library full of official LDS documents. You will not buffalo me.
I’m still waiting for your evidence of errors and corruption of the Bible, of things left out, etc.
LikeLike
SHANE
Even a prophet is entitled to an opinion. Read the quote again and you will see that what he is actually teaching is that all things are created for a purpose, and in his mind that purpose is to support life.
Now, I do not discount anything the early leaders have said, but I follow the advise of Joseph Fielding Smith when he says that if any leader teaches a doctrine that is contrary to the standard works we are free to dismiss it. So, when I read the words of any prophet I compare them to the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. If I find any contradiction I set that particular teaching aside.
However, I have seen more misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the part of those who seek to overthrow the church in regards to past leaders than I have seen members simply ignoring them.
Since Glenn uses the example of “Blood Atonement” I will use this.
The doctrine of blood atonement is a true doctrine and has never been denied by any leader as far as I know. What has been denied is the false understanding that the leaders are to hunt down sinners and kill them. This is not the doctrine, and it never has been.
The doctrine is exactly the same as it was in the days of Moses when death was proclaimed against several sins. When the church of God is also the civil authority this law comes in force, and death if proclaimed against the more grevious sins, for the law of God is a law of restitution, and some things cannot be restored, thus requiring the life of the one who took it. But that life can only be taken after the person has been proen guilty in court or confesses.
Basically, Bloos Atonement is more dignified version of capital punishment.
GLENN
Again you are lecturing me, and wuite honestly it is rather annoying. I understand the workings of the church better then you ever will.
The Book of Mormon was accepted on the day the church was organized, April 6, 1830. The then six members ratified it and everyone joining later has ratified it before being baptized.
The Doctrine and Covenants was ratified when it was first printed, and every section that has been added since has been ratified by the membership.
The Pearl of Great Price has also been submitted, though I do not at this time recall the date.
These, along with the Bible (which is also ratified) constitute the standard works and the doctrine that is binding on the church.
All the quotes you give do not change this fact. Yes, we are to follow the counsel of the prophet, but that does not make everything he says binding. Another good example is the teaching of Family Home Evening. If we are smart we will follow this counsel and be blessed. However, we will not be denied membership or entrance to the temple because we do not do this.
Binding doctrine is that which must be accepted and followed before one can be baptized or enter the temple. Anything that does not hinder these two events is not binding. It is as simple as that.
As to the JST, I have admitted my error and acknowledged that the translation was complete. This I will not argue. However, it was not ready for publication, and I take this from the introduction to the Complete JST that I now own. The editor points out that punctuation, spelling, verse separation, and a few other things are not uniform between the different manuscripts. So, unless you are a scholar who has spent ten years going over the different manuscripts and trying to prepare them for printing, I will take the word of Thomas A. Wayment over yours.
Now, getting into the command to print the Bible, I never actually said that God did not intend it to be printed. I simply said he could have if he fealt like it, and then you went off and demanded an examlpe of such, and so let us get back to the real issues.
I do believe that God had every intention of the JST being printed. Now, I do not think that giving the command to print it, or to build the printing house is evidence that it was ready for printing. This is not a logical conclusion by any stretch. All it proves is the actual intent to have it published, not that it was ready for publication.
Now, as it happens, Joseph Smith met with great opposission to everything he tried to do, and printing the New Translation was no acception. Because of persecutions and trials he was unable to complete the work of publication.
This poses no problems as God only requires that we do everything in our power to fulfill his commands, and once we have done this we are accepted. If the work was not completed he will no longer require it, for he will never require more than we can give.
So, Joseph Smith was given the command to print the New Translation, but after everything he could do the work was not completed. His offering is accepted and the work is no longer required.
LikeLike
So BY was a false prophet?
Sorry Shem. You are blinded to the truth of God. You believe a false god, a false Jesus, and a false gospel.
LikeLike
SHANE
When did I ever say Brigham Young was a false prophet. I never said anything like this. What I said is that Brigham Young may have had some false ideas, but that is just fine with me. He is a man, like anyone else, and to say that he has to be perfect in everything he says to be a prophet is ridiculous.
I believe in the only gospel that is taught in the Bible, as all other professing gospels contradict and ignore that sacred book. I believe in the Christ that is testified to in the Bible, for no other religion is in harmony with what the Bible teaches. I believe in the only God of heaven that the Bible so clearly teaches.
No, I do not believe in the god, christ, or gospel that you do, but then I have the truth.
LikeLike
Then you believe a lie. God the Creator that is revealed in the Bible is not the god of Mormonism. God the Father does not have a physical body and Satan and Jesus are not brothers. The God of the Bible has revealed Himself as the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one God and you sir or madam do not believe in Him.
So you sir or madam are a pagan that has believed a lie and is bound towards hell. May God open your eyes and reveal the truth to you before it is too late.
LikeLike
Shemmy,
So, if Brigham Young says something you don’t want to agree with, it becomes just an opinion? Is he or is he not a prophet of God? It is so convenient for Mormons to claim false teaching from a prophet is just an opinion when it is proven to be totally nonsense, as with BY’s teaching about inhabitants on the moon and sun.
If you truly compared any LDS teachings with the Bible, you’d leave the LDS faith as I did when I compared LDS teachings with the Bible. Only one can be true, and I trust the Bible over a false prophet.
There was never a “blood atonement” doctrine in the Bible. The doctrine of blood atonement was not as you described, rather it was the teaching that some sins could not be atoned for by the blood of Christ, and that only the blood of the sinner could atone for such sin. Adultery was an example, murder was an example. It wasn’t for the reasons Israel was commanded, it was because the LDS teaching said a person’s own blood was necessary to atone for such sin. You are misrepresenting the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by BY because that is a doctrine the LDS now refutes.
I’d say it is you who are attempting to lecture me, and you continue to claim I don’t understand the workings of the LDS. I submit it is you who don’t understand the nature of the religious system you are placing the eternal destiny of your soul with. As I said, I am an ex-Mormon and have been studying the LDS for over 35 years. It really doesn’t take too much savvy to be able to see the fraudulent nature of the LDS once you open your mind to learn the truth rather than accept LDS propaganda.
NO ONE ratified the BOM before it was accepted. Smith wrote it and claimed it came from God and his initial followers just accepted his word for it. And no one has every ratified the BOM – everyone has just accepted it as true because Smith claimed to be a prophet.
The D&C is the second version of the original Book of Commandments, which no one ratified (and which, by the way, has had many changes made to it to add to and “fix” some of Smith’s prophecies). They were prophecies of Joseph Smith and no one ratified any of it. The same is true of the POGP. The Bible was also never ratified by anyone. Everyone just accepted the truth of everything SMith said.
All the quotes I gave you are from Official LDS sources and you either accept what they say or you are stating only your own opinion. You don’t want to accept what they say because they prove you wrong. The Family home evening is NOT a prophetic utterance nor is it direct teaching from a prophet. You cannot liken that to the King Follett Discourse, which was direct doctrinal teaching from the prophet Joseph Smith, and according to D&C 21 EVERY word of his is to be received as if from God’s own mouth. “give heed unto ALL his words and commandments…as if from mine own mouth…”
Nothing Smith ever taught had to be ratified by anyone else. And you know that.
Punctuation, spelling, and the like does not make a manuscript not ready for publication. The printer/publisher edits that stuff. I know; my father was a writer and not always did he have the best punctuation and spelling, yet the editors of the magazines he wrote for took care of the minor details. Parts of the JST were already published, such as in D&C 22 and 36 prior to the 1835 edition, and then they became part of the POGP. I also own a complete JST, by the way (as well as a parallel edition with just the changed portions along with the KJV original), and it doesn’t mention multiple manuscripts and I’ve read no other history of multiple manuscripts; the JST says there was one manuscript and it was in Emma’s possession until she gave it to Joseph III. This is the primary reason the LDS claims it is unfinished. If BY had it in his possession, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be accepted as 100% completed!
What is amusing is even the RLDS has to claim the JST was not really completed, in direct defiance to Smith’s own words, because they also had a problem with his not correcting errors.
God had intended for the JST to be printed, but the Mormon God was unable to foresee the Missouri mobs destroying the printing presses which would be doing the job. And you have the excuse that God just said, “Oh well, you tried to obey my command, so that’s okay.”
You also claim you only believe in the Gospel “that is taught in the Bible,” but that is blatantly untrue because the LDS gospel totally contradicts the Bible, with totally different versions of God and Christ! There is NO truth in the LDS, which was developed by a known necromancer. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge that fact, and the fact that he used his seer stone stuffed in a hat to “translate” the BOM without the BOM even being near him!
LikeLike
SHANE
Do not assume I have not read the Bible, for I have; and in its entirety. I know the words very well, and when I read them it is the LDS church that I see. I see in the Bible a Godhead of three beings, two of which are physical. I see no evidence of a mysterious triune God.
Now, we could argue this point endlessly, but it all comes down to interpretation, something that cannot be objectively proven. The only proof one can have regarding interpretation is a person assurance from God. However, even if I have that assurance it will prove nothing to you; just as you having an assurance will prove nothing to me.
So, instead of engaging in the pointless retoric of labeling and name calling, let us instead simlpy try to understand one another and leave the convincing in the hands of God.
GLENN
I am done. You are a former mormon whose sole intent is to seek after things to ridicule to excuse your own disbelief.
I have compared the LDS doctrine to the Bible, and find that it is perfect in its harmony. It is the rest of Christianity that denies the Bible and what it teaches.
I did not misrepresent the doctrine of Blood Atonement, but explained the reasons for it.
I was very accurate in what I said concerning the JST, and if you actually own the books you claim to own you have not read the introduction as it is all described there very clearly.
God commanded the JST to be published, knowing fulwell that mobs violence would prevent it, so as to test the saints in their resolve to obey him.
However, none of this will mean anything to you, for you have hardened your heart to the truth and seek now only to destroy the church of God. You are malicious and prideful. Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance.
Do not use the claim of “I was a member and have studied” because it doesn’t work. You have left the true light and thus are in darkness. What you once knew is tainted by your current prejudice, and God will block your mind from true understanding as long as you continue to oppose his work.
As there is nothing else to say this will be my last comment to you.
LikeLike
Sorry to see the conversation come to an end. It has been interesting.
There was the pulling of the “Even a prophet is entitled to an opinion” card on June 3rd. That excuse has been summarily proven as a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to defend the unpopular teachings of LDS prophets.
And then Glenn “came out of the closet,” revealing he’s an ex-Mormon, so now (as expected) all further discussion is over.
This was not a waste of time though. Shem did concede from his May 17th comment that:
That Joseph Smith made changes to God’s Word is what we’ve been saying all along. :o)
Shem, you are welcome back at anytime. Being an LDS internet apologist I don’t expect any of us will change your mind (and you certainly won’t change ours) but the conversation has been fruitful as many points of LDS theology (which many LDS won’t openly discuss) have been reveled on this thread, and for that, I am grateful.
LikeLike
Then you are not a Christian. If you don’t hold to the Trinity then you are in no way a Christian.
There is only one God.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
(Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV)
Jesus claiming His deity.
I and the Father are one.”
(John 10:30 ESV)
The Holy Spirit is described as being a “he”.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
(John 16:13 ESV)
There are many more verses that are evidence to the Trinity.
You are involved in a pagan religion, so thus you are a pagan. It is simply not name calling. Because of your religion you cannot truthfully claim to be a Christian and I am sure not going to call you one. Hopefully God will reveal Himself to you and convince you of the truth.
LikeLike
Oh, so I am excusing my own disbelief?!? And then you question my veracity as to whether I have the publications I claim to have? Um, just where do you think I’m getting my citations from? Oh, I get it – I must be going to “anti-Mormon” websites! Sorry to disappoint you, but I have what I claim to have.
If you think the LDS doctrine is not contradictory to the Bible, I submit you are only looking at the Bible through LDS theology rather than letting the Bible speak for itself.
I don’t seek things to “ridicule,” rather I seek to plant seeds of truth to Mormons like yourself. You claim you have the truth, but please explain why no one discovered Mormonism for 1800 years after Christ ascended? And it was “discovered” by a man who was deeply involved in the occult, and “translated” the BOM the same way he dowsed for buried treasure! There is absolutely NO evidence anywhere that anything in the BOM took place. Much of the BOM is plagiarized right out of the KJV Bible. And yet you think this is the truth? I can demonstrate almost 50 prophecies by Joseph Smith which failed to come to pass – that is the mark of a false prophet.
What do you mean by “the rest of Christianity”? Real Christianity indeed follows exactly what the Bible teaches. It took over 100 years for the Mormons to realized they wanted to be called “Christian” when previously they wanted nothing to do with that name. Now, seeking respectability and deceiving people into false teachings, the LDS wants to claim the name “Christian” without following any Christian doctrine. So, how about I call myself a Mormon and refuse to follow any LDS doctrine – will you allow me to do that?
You are very inaccurate in your story about the JST. You make excuses for a man-god living on another planet who never gets his prophecies right, and who changes his mind with the wind.
It is you who are hardening your heart to the truth. Your only defense is to call me “malicious and prideful” – suddenly I’m a beast because I trapped you in the lies of Mormondom. Call me ignorant – but aren’t we all? No one has full knowledge, so we are all ignorant about many things. But, you cannot claim I don’t know the LDS faith – I’ve been there, done that. The only work I am opposing is the work of the devil through the LDS church, and I will continue to expose it for what it is as I pray that people like you will see the truth and leave that organization.
LikeLike
GLENN
As I said, I am not responding to you anymore.
PILGRIM
I did not end the conversation when Glenn revealed he was an ex-mormon. I ended it when I realized that Glenn would never listen to anything I was saying. More particularly, it ended when he claimed that the books I was referencing did not contain the information I said they did, which I know to be perfectly false.
I have admitted my error when I have made it, but I really don’t think he would ever be willing to do such.
SHANE
John 17: 11, 21 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in teh world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are…
That they all may be one; as thou, Fatehr, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
So, does this mean that we are all going to be part of a single entity; instead of a triune, and multi-une being?
I think most people would laugh at this idea, but if all the references to God being one mean he is a triune being, then for us to be one in the same manner, and to be one in him, would this not require that we join that being in this manner and become a multi-une being?
I prefer to see things in a different way.
I read acts 4: 32 “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common,” and see a very different meaning for the word one.
I read Romans 12: 5 “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” and see this same concept taught.
Again in 1 Corinthians 6: 17 “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”
This is taught as the goal of the saints. In 2 Corinthians 13: 11 “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you.”
It is again reiterated in Philipians 1: 27 “Only let you conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I caome and soo you, or else be abscent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spiri, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”
And, lest you think these verses to not apply to Christ, it says in Hebrews 2: 11 “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”
So, we are to be one, even as Christ and his Father are one. We are that we become one in spirit and in mind, remaining separate individuals, but being one in purpose thought. Thus when it speaks to Christ and the Father being one, or to there being only one God and one Lord, it is also using this same understanding of the term one; they are different, distinct beings, but they are one in mind and purpose.
As I said, I see no triune God in the Bible, and no where does the term Trinity appear in the Bible.
Now, personally, you can call me anything you want; I really don’t care. However, it is name calling. What makes it name calling is the context and delivery of the term. You can consider me a pagan all you want, though you do use the term incorrectly. Hey, I consider you a gentile. However, when I state it in a way to lord myself over you, then it becomes a derogatory term, and thus it is name calling.
And before you saying anything to the contrary, this is exactly what you did. Now, I am not saying that was your intention, only the outcome.
You said “So you sir or madam are a pagan that has believed a lie and is bound towards hell.”
This is a statement of judgement, with you as the judge. It is thus a statement that places you over me in a position of authority (thus lording yourself over me). As such the term Pagan, as used by you, took on the meaning of a condemned man, and thus comparible to criminal. It thus became name calling.
________________________________________________________
Sorry, I would like to correct something I said in my last post.
I gave a reason for ending my discussion with Glenn, but I was not completely truthful. I was honest in saying his former membership had nothing to do with my discission, and I was accurate in pointing out that I had given accurate references which he denied existed.
However, I think the main reason was because I sense a hostility that I am not comfortable with. It seems that because I won’t bow down to his comments he is getting angry, and that is making me angry, an emotion that I do not like to feel. I may be in error in how I perceive his words, and if Iam I apologyze. However, for now I think it best that we both just leave and let our own thoughts cool down.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Shemmy,
I never get angry at Mormons. At the most I feel pity for them because they are trapped in a false religious belief system and refuse the truth staring them in their faces.
_______________________________________________________________
Shemmy,
If you’re going to talk about me, I get to respond. I said your report of what you claim is inaccurate – you don’t give all the information. I believe it is YOU who claimed I do not really have what I claim to have, nor had I even read the publications.
LikeLike